autoconf update

Dominic Fandrey kamikaze at
Fri Sep 17 06:12:04 UTC 2010

On 17/09/2010 06:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Dominic Fandrey<kamikaze at> writes:
>>>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>>>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze at wrote:
>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
>>>>>> dependency?
>>>>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
>>>>>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
>>>>>> all the software improves it.
>>>>>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't
>>>>>> understand and that worries me.
>>> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch.
>> We shouldn't use our users to beta-test infrastructure changes.
> Sorry, I'm not feeling well atm and realize that I didn't write what I
> was thinking here. What I intended to say was that we _don't_
> intentionally use the ports system to force our users to beta test
> changes. I think it goes without saying that we _shouldn't_ do this,
> although I think that changes like this are a platinum-coated example of
> why we need to have -stable and -dev branches for ports.

I used to disagree with this, because I thought it would create
additional work load. I have come to think more favourably of the
idea, because you can make more daring commits on a -dev branch
and don't have to quick-fix everything that goes wrong.

Also the time between a MFC does not have to be very long. A week
should be more than enough time to uncover and solve all problems.
So the delay to get updates and fixes on the -stable branch is not
very long.


A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? 

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list